The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of notice and adherence to principles of natural justice in withholding retirement benefits, as well as the proper application of house building advance rules and circulars.

Ratnaker Bhengra, J. - The prayer of the petitioner is for issuing show-cause as to how they have withheld an amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- (approximately) from the retirement benefit of the petitioner and further for direction to immediately release the amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- (approximately), which has been withheld by the respondent authorities without any authority or any order with compensatory interest.

2. Before proceeding with the matter, an initial question was raised by the respondents and needed to be settled was whether this High Court was the appropriate forum for deciding the issues involved in this case, rather it should be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel for the SAIL has submitted a notification No. S.O 727(E) dated 31.3.2010 where in exercise of the powers conferred under subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985(13 of 1985), the Central Government has specified the organisation to which subsection (3) of section 14 of the aforesaid Act will apply, and in the schedule attached at serial No. 201 is the Steel Authority of India Ltd(SAIL). Learned counsel then says that by the notifications the correct forum to hear this issue is the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT).He also produced a net copy of the order dated 7.2.2003 Alok Agrawal v. Union of India and Ors (W.P.(C) No. 6606 of 2011) decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in which a dispute with SAIL and certain employees was existing and the validity of the notification dated 31.3.2010 was questioned. The Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh held that there was no illegality in the notification. Another instance was cited in Rabindra Singh v. The Steel Authority of India, W.P.(C) No. 474 of 2014 decided on 18.8.2015 wherein both parties agreed that cause of action is cognisable by CAT and thus Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court gave liberty to raise the issue before CAT. Hence, this issue of lack of jurisdiction was not agreed to by the petitioner who submitted that when natural justice has been obstructed or violated, then the Hon'ble High Court can hear and decide the matter. As against this issue of jurisdictional maintainability counsel for the petitioner has countered by saying that it has been held by the Apex Court of the Land that in cases where natural justice has been violated then the High Court can indeed hear such cases. The petitioner has claimed a violation of the principles of natural justice since no immediate notice or any opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to the withholding of Rs. 4,30,000/- that even no order was issued for withholding the same, but the same was simply withheld and that too from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was some communication made to him on the matter dated 10.2.1999 and before but the approximate amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- was deducted from the final settlement after his superannuation on 30.6.2009 and that too without any notice, so it is clearly a violation of natural justice. They simply deducted the amount even without any order to the same. Based on these aforementioned reasons this court has thus entered into the case.

4. The facts of the case according to the petitioner is that the petitioner joined Bokaro Steel Plant on 11.12.1970. The petitioner state that the petitioner was allotted a residential quarters by the Company during his service tenure. The petitioner has availed house building advance from the respondent Company amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The same was sanctioned by office order dated 05.12.1994.The said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was sanctioned in three instalments.

5. That the petitioner states that the aforesaid advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was fully utilised by the petitioner for constructing his residential house. However, as the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was not sufficient for the purpose of completing the house, the petitioner could not finish the e